Literature DB >> 24504541

Renal stones on portal venous phase contrast-enhanced CT: does intravenous contrast interfere with detection?

R Joshua Dym1, Dameon R Duncan, Michael Spektor, Hillel W Cohen, Meir H Scheinfeld.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To determine the sensitivity of portal venous phase contrast-enhanced CT for the detection of renal stones.
METHODS: This retrospective study included 97 CT examinations of the abdomen without and with intravenous contrast, including 85 (87.6%) examinations with at least one renal stone on the "gold standard" noncontrast images, as scored by a single radiologist. Three other radiologists each independently reviewed only the contrast-enhanced images from all 97 examinations and recorded all renal stones. Reviewer sensitivity for stones was categorized by stone diameter. Reviewer sensitivity and specificity for stone disease were also calculated on a per-kidney basis.
RESULTS: The 97 cases included a total of 238 stones ≥1 mm, with a mean (±SD) of 1.2 ± 1.9 stones per kidney and a stone diameter of 3.5 ± 3.0 mm. Pooling data for the three reviewers, sensitivity for all stones was 81%; sensitivity for stones ≥2, ≥3, ≥4, and ≥5 mm was 88%, 95%, 99%, and 98%, respectively. Sensitivity for stone disease on a per-kidney basis was 94% when considering all stones; when considering only stones ≥2, ≥3, and ≥4 mm, sensitivity was 96%, 99%, and 100%, respectively. Specificity for stone disease on a per-kidney basis was 98% overall, 99% when considering only stones ≥2 mm, and 100% when considering only stones ≥3 mm.
CONCLUSION: Contrast-enhanced CT is highly sensitive for the detection of renal stones ≥3 mm in diameter and less sensitive for smaller stones. In cases where the clinical diagnosis is uncertain and performance of a CT examination is being contemplated, intravenous contrast utilization would allow assessment for stone disease while also optimizing evaluation for other conditions.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24504541      PMCID: PMC4295488          DOI: 10.1007/s00261-014-0082-4

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Abdom Imaging        ISSN: 0942-8925


  36 in total

Review 1.  Helical CT and ureteral colic.

Authors:  B A Spencer; B J Wood; S P Dretler
Journal:  Urol Clin North Am       Date:  2000-05       Impact factor: 2.241

2.  Relationship of spontaneous passage of ureteral calculi to stone size and location as revealed by unenhanced helical CT.

Authors:  Deirdre M Coll; Michael J Varanelli; Robert C Smith
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2002-01       Impact factor: 3.959

Review 3.  Bias in research studies.

Authors:  Gregory T Sica
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2006-03       Impact factor: 11.105

4.  Quantitating contrast medium-induced nephropathy: controlling the controls.

Authors:  Jeffrey H Newhouse; Arindam RoyChoudhury
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2013-04       Impact factor: 11.105

5.  Soft-tissue "rim" sign in the diagnosis of ureteral calculi with use of unenhanced helical CT.

Authors:  J P Heneghan; N C Dalrymple; M Verga; A T Rosenfield; R C Smith
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1997-03       Impact factor: 11.105

6.  Acute ureteral obstruction: value of secondary signs of helical unenhanced CT.

Authors:  R C Smith; M Verga; N Dalrymple; S McCarthy; A T Rosenfield
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  1996-11       Impact factor: 3.959

7.  When is ESWL of small calyceal stones indicated?

Authors:  Peter C.K. Lau; Richard W. Norman
Journal:  Can J Urol       Date:  1997-09       Impact factor: 1.344

8.  Small renal caliceal calculi as a cause of pain.

Authors:  L Andersson; M Sylvén
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  1983-10       Impact factor: 7.450

9.  The CT nephrogram: implications for evaluation of urinary tract disease.

Authors:  H S Saunders; R B Dyer; R Y Shifrin; E S Scharling; R E Bechtold; R J Zagoria
Journal:  Radiographics       Date:  1995-09       Impact factor: 5.333

10.  Caliceal calculi.

Authors:  G E Brannen; W H Bush; G P Lewis
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  1986-06       Impact factor: 7.450

View more
  4 in total

1.  Variation in Radiologic and Urologic Computed Tomography Interpretation of Urinary Tract Stone Burden: Results From the Registry for Stones of the Kidney and Ureter.

Authors:  David T Tzou; Dylan Isaacson; Manint Usawachintachit; Zhen J Wang; Kazumi Taguchi; Nancy K Hills; Ryan S Hsi; Benjamin A Sherer; Shalonda Reliford-Titus; Brian Duty; Jonathan D Harper; Mathew Sorensen; Roger L Sur; Marshall L Stoller; Thomas Chi
Journal:  Urology       Date:  2017-10-13       Impact factor: 2.649

2.  Contrast-enhanced or noncontrast CT for renal colic: utilizing urinalysis and patient history of urolithiasis to decide.

Authors:  Vishal Desai; Mougnyan Cox; Sandeep Deshmukh; Christopher G Roth
Journal:  Emerg Radiol       Date:  2018-04-20

Review 3.  [Painless hematuria: diagnostic workup using multislice computertomography].

Authors:  M Töpker
Journal:  Radiologe       Date:  2018-10       Impact factor: 0.635

Review 4.  Low-Dose Abdominal CT for Evaluating Suspected Appendicitis: Recommendations for CT Imaging Techniques and Practical Issues.

Authors:  Ji Hoon Park; Hae Young Kim; Ji Ye Sim; Kyoung Ho Lee
Journal:  Diagnostics (Basel)       Date:  2022-06-29
  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.